Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA

[Andrew McMeikan <andrewm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> 
> On 27 Sep 2009, at 19:43, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
>> So, if there is any willingness to create a registrant constituency,
>> this is
>> the right time. Of course, a new constituency has to fit within one of
>> the
>> SGs. For instance, an "Individual Non_Commercial Registrant Constituency"
>> could easily be created as part of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group
>> (NCSG).
> 
> 
> And an Individual Commercial Registrants Constituency could be created
> (easily?) as part of the Commercial Stakeholder Group.
> 
> So, who knows, the people on the GA list could conceivably organize
> themselves into 2 registrant constituencies, not just one.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 

I must admit that this emphasises what makes me unhappy with the
GNSO structure as it is.  What should be one constituency is divided
  into different stakeholder groups, having to comply with imposed
rules.  Then further splits based on geographic location.  It seems
a structure designed to water any consensus down into seemingly
opposing groups.

I do not feel that my opinion is as sincerely welcomed as I felt it
was when the at-large elections were first announced all those years
ago.

What I do feel is that top-down imposed structure is the way of the
GNSO not a bottom up decision process.

        cya,    Andrew...